We indemnify our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the state of Delaware and we have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers. In addition, we insure our individual directors and officers against certain claims and attorney's fees and related expenses incurred in connection with the defense of such claims. The amounts and types of coverage may vary from period to period as dictated by market conditions. Management is not aware of any matters that require indemnification of its officers or directors.

Our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, contains certain provisions restricting business combinations with interested stockholders under certain circumstances and imposing higher voting requirements for the approval of certain transactions ("fair price" provisions). Any of these provisions may delay or prevent a change in control.


	Year Ended December 31,
(In thousands)	2020		2019		2018
Balance at beginning of period	$	1,514	$	276	$	339
Accruals for warranties issued during the period	578		1,742		787
Settlements (in cash or in kind) during the period	(463)		(504)		(849)
Foreign currency translation gain (loss)	92		—		(1)
Balance at end of period	$	1,721	$	1,514	$	276

On September 26, 2016, we entered into an agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility for RMB 320 million. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the buyer deposited 10% of the purchase price into an escrow account upon the execution of the agreement. In April 2018, we and the buyer mutually agreed to terminate the sale. The mutually agreed termination took effect immediately with no incremental penalty or costs to either party. In connection with this termination, the deposit was returned to the buyer.

On April 23, 2018, we entered into a new agreement to sell our Guangzhou manufacturing facility to a second buyer for RMB 339 million (approximately $51.4 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). On April 26, 2018, the second buyer paid to us a deposit of RMB 34 million (approximately $5.1 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing), which under the terms of the agreement was nonrefundable. Upon receipt by the Governmental Agency of the second buyer’s application of approval of transfer, the second buyer was to pay to us RMB 237 million (approximately $35.8 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing). Additionally, within two days after the second payment was made to us, the second buyer was to deposit the remaining consideration of RMB 68 million (approximately $10.3 million based on exchange rates in effect at the time of closing) into escrow, which was to be released to us upon the closing of the sale. Per the terms of the agreement, the sale was to be completed no later than June 30, 2018. On June 26, 2018, all conditions to closing were satisfied and the sale was completed, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $37.0 million ($32.1 million, net of income taxes).

In the fourth quarter of 2018, we implemented a plan to relocate our corporate office from Santa Ana, California to Scottsdale, Arizona and to relocate our Asian engineering leadership, supply chain and customer support functions from Hong Kong to our other facilities in the PRC. In connection with these restructuring activities, we incurred severance costs of $0.4 million and $0.9 million during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, which are included within selling, general and administrative expenses.

On September 5, 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Roku, Inc. ("Roku") in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that Roku is willfully infringing nine of our patents that are in four patent families related to remote control set-up and touchscreen remotes. On December 5, 2018, we amended our complaint to add additional details supporting our infringement and willfulness allegations. We have alleged that this complaint relates to multiple Roku streaming players and components therefore and certain universal control devices, including but not limited to the Roku App, Roku TV, Roku Express, Roku Streaming Stick, Roku Ultra, Roku Premiere, Roku 4, Roku 3, Roku 2, Roku Enhanced Remote and any other Roku product that provides for the remote control of an external device such as a TV, audiovisual receiver, sound bar or Roku TV Wireless Speakers. In October 2019, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending action by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the "PTAB") with respect to Roku's Inter Partes Review requests (see discussion below).

On April 16, 2020, we filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (the "ITC") against Roku, TCL Electronics Holding Limited and related entities (collectively, "TCL"), Hisense Co., Ltd. and related entities (collectively, "Hisense"), and Funai Electric Company, Ltd. and related entities (collectively, "Funai") claiming that certain of their televisions, set-top boxes, remote control devices, human interface devices, streaming devices, and sound bars infringe certain of our patents. We asked the ITC to issue a permanent limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of these infringing products into the United States and a cease and desist order to stop these parties from continuing their infringing activities. On May 18, 2020, the ITC announced that it instituted its investigation as requested by us. The discovery phase of this investigation has been completed and trial is set to commence on April 19, 2021.

In September and October 2019, Roku filed Inter Partes Review ("IPR") requests with the PTAB on the nine patents at issue in the 2018 Lawsuit (see discussion above). To date, the PTAB has denied Roku's request with respect to three of the nine patents and granted Roku's request with respect to six of the nine patents. As for those IPRs for which the PTAB granted Roku's request for review, we will vigorously defend our patents. In May and June 2020, Roku filed four IPR requests against three patents asserted in the ITC investigation. We have responded to these requests and are awaiting the PTAB decision in early- to mid-2021. On February 11, 2021, Roku filed an additional IPR with respect to one of the patents asserted against it in the April 2020 District Court actions (see decision below for a description of the April 2020 District Court actions).

On April 9, 2020, we filed separate actions against each of Roku, TCL, Hisense, and Funai in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that Roku is willfully infringing five of our patents and TCL, Hisense, and Funai are willfully infringing six of our patents by incorporating our patented technology into certain of their televisions, set-top boxes, remote control devices, human interface devices, streaming devices, and sound bars. These matters have been stayed pending the results of the ITC investigation mentioned above.

On October 9, 2020, we and our subsidiaries, Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc. ("Ecolink") and RCS Technology, LLC ("RCS") filed an amended complaint (20-cv-00670) in the Court of International Trade (the "CIT") against the United States of America; the Office of the United States Trade Representative; Robert E. Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative; U.S. Customs & Border Protection; and Mark A. Morgan, U.S. Customs & Border Protection Acting Commissioner, challenging both the substantive and procedural processes followed by the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") when instituting Section 301 Tariffs on imports from China under Lists 3 and 4A.

By this complaint, we, Ecolink and RCS are alleging that USTR's institution of Lists 3 and 4A tariffs violated the Trade Act of 1974 (the "Trade Act") on the grounds that the USTR failed to make a determination or finding that there was an unfair trade practice that required a remedy and moreover, that Lists 3 and 4A tariffs were instituted beyond the 12-month time limit provided for in the governing statute. We, Ecolink and RCS also allege that the manner in which the Lists 3 and 4A tariff actions were implemented violated the Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") by failing to provide adequate opportunity for comments, failed to consider relevant factors when making its decision and failed to connect the record facts to the choices it made by not explaining how the comments received by USTR came to shape the final implementation of Lists 3 and 4A.

We, Ecolink and RCS are asking the CIT to declare that Defendants' actions resulting in the tariffs on products covered by Lists 3 and 4A are unauthorized by and contrary to the Trade Act and were arbitrarily and unlawfully promulgated in violation of the APA; to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs; to order a refund (with interest) of any Lists 3 and 4A duties paid by us, Ecolink and RCS; to permanently enjoin the U.S. government from applying Lists 3 and 4A duties against us, Ecolink and RCS; and award us, Ecolink and RCS our costs and reasonable attorney fees.

The Government has requested an automatic stay of all pending cases challenging the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs except for one or more "test cases." It proposed the first-filed case—the case filed by HMTX—as the test case. The government also asked the court to appoint a "steering committee" consisting of several lead counsel for the plaintiffs to direct the litigation. The government proposed a bifurcated briefing schedule, under which the parties would first brief the government's upcoming motion to dismiss before briefing the merits of plaintiffs' claims. We will agree to a stay in our case. HMTX has filed a response agreeing to the stay and to being the test case but opposed the Government's proposed briefing schedule.

On February 10, 2021, the CIT's three-judge panel issued an order establishing a master case for filings that relate to some or all of the Section 301 cases. It also establishes a deadline of March 12, 2021 for the government to file a "master answer" to all the complaints. We are still awaiting the CIT's decision on other case management procedures and processes.

There are no other material pending legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which our respective property is the subject. However, as is typical in our industry and to the nature and kind of business in which we are engaged, from time to time, various claims, charges and litigation are asserted or commenced by third parties against us or by us against third parties arising from or related to product liability, infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights, breach of warranty, contractual relations, or employee relations. The amounts claimed may be substantial, but may not bear any reasonable relationship to the merits of the claims or the extent of any real risk of court awards assessed against us or in our favor. However, no assurances can be made as to the outcome of any of these matters, nor can we estimate the range of potential losses to us. In our opinion, final judgments, if any, which might be rendered against us in potential or pending litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Moreover, we believe that our products do not infringe any third parties' patents or other intellectual property rights.

Our subsidiary in India maintains a defined benefit pension plan ("India Plan") for local employees, which is consistent with local statutes and practices. The pension plan was adequately funded on December 31, 2020 based on its latest actuarial report. The India Plan has an independent external manager that advises us of the appropriate funding contribution requirements to which we comply. At December 31, 2020, approximately 57 percent of our India subsidiary employees had qualified for eligibility. An individual must be employed by our India subsidiary for a minimum of five years before becoming eligible. Upon the termination, resignation or retirement of an eligible employee, we are liable to pay the employee an amount equal to 15 days salary for each full year of service completed. The total amount of liability outstanding at December 31, 2020 and 2019 for the India Plan was not material. During the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, the net periodic benefit costs were also not material.